Re: Fwd: next version of csvkit
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 01, 2017 05:12:38 PM Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
>> On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 15:55 +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > How so? Buster will not be supporting Python 2, so the narrative of
>> > > having new source packages only provide Python 3 binary packages is
>> > > totally justified.
>> >
>> > What makes you think this is true?
>>
>> I wonder whether I am the only one who read this [1] or that [2].
>>
>> Pasting the relevant quotes below:
>>
>> "The 2.x series of Python is due for deprecation and will not be
>> maintained past 2020 so it is recommended that Python 2 modules are not
>> packaged unless necessary."
>>
>> "The idea is to basically stop uploading new Python 2 only libraries,
>> port things on the critical path, and swap leaf packages to Python 3."
>>
>> csvkit definitely qualifies as such leaf package, since it is a
>> collection of command-line tools, not a Python library.
>>
>> > As far as I know, Python 2 will be around a long time yet.
>>
>> Python 2 will be supported until 2020. That's sooner rather than later
>> considering we are in 2017 and Stretch has not been released yet.
>>
>> [1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/new-package-should-not-package-pyth
>> on2-module.html
>> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/04/msg00005.htm
>> l
>
> It's not at all clear where [1] came from. The lintian changelog [3] does not
> give a bug reference and I couldn't find a bug.
it's just a few lines down in the changelog:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829744 (it is kinda
sad that there was no discussion with the python team from the lintian
maintainer before accepting and merging it, even if it was done after
stretch freeze, which was indeed a clever move)
>
> [2] is about porting Debian's own infrastructure to Python 3. It's nothing to
> do with removing support for Python 2 from the archive.
>
> Although the current date is 2020, I don't know anyone in the Python community
> that doesn't expect that to be extended one way or another (it might be
> external to python.org). No matter how it's managed there are huge Python 2
> code bases that aren't migrated and won't be done in three years.
>
> I believe it makes sense to consider if Python 2 support is needed for new
> packages or not (as an example, when we initially packaged PyQt5 we did it
> only for Python 3, but later had to add Python 2 packages to support upstreams
> that had migrated from Qt4 to Qt5, but not yet to Python 3).
>
> That is completely different than expecting the existing Python 2 things that
> we have will go away. Pushing too hard on Python 2 removal is a great way to
> make Debian less relevant for things Pythonic.
Thanks for saying exactly what i'm thinking. I've been bitten already
twice (excluding agate) by source packages not shipping a python2
binary packages for pkgs depending on them.
I am sure that the python codebase i'm working on will not be migrated
to python 3 before the current deadline. This crusade against python 2
in debian is just making my work harder and in general a disservice to
debian users.
Dropping a package is a lot easier than passing thru NEW (even if it's
very quick nowdays, but it still requires manual intervention) to add
a new one: can we stop considering python 2 dead, and make it as best
as we can in Debian (even eventual dropping it once we reach a
decision it's the right move)?
--
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi
Reply to: